User talk:Toa Nidhiki05

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

1RR

Hi; could you please restore the paragraph on 2004 United States election voting controversies that you removed? [1][2]

I initially didn't realize this myself, but the page is under WP:1RR, and you reverted the content twice in 24 hours (added by two different editors). JSwift49 14:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realize this either, but I’m not sure what the solution is? Does it need to be added or removed? Toa Nidhiki05 15:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The solution to avoid violating the rule is to self-revert (ie. re-add it). Since a third editor agreed it should be added, we can discuss more in Talk. JSwift49 19:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They also need to self-revert, as the page clearly states reverted content needs consensus to be re-added. Toa Nidhiki05 19:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page notice was wrong, which I fixed (as a non-privileged uninvolved editor). Per WP:CTOP#Enforcement of restrictions an editor may not be blocked for violating a page restriction unless an uninvolved administrator has placed editnotice in the article. I.e. when you click the edit button, the editnotice should enumerate the restrictions. That being said, please avoid edit-warring, folks. Thank you. Politrukki (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accordingly, I've reverted the deletion. The words in place on the 2004 United States election voting controversies page are remain relatively short, hopefully satisfying comments from @Muboshgu. Chumpih ^t 18:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting; per WP:BRD, you should ne be re-adding disputed content during an ongoing discussion you're a part of. Toa Nidhiki05 19:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Chumpih ^t 20:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't get yourself blocked again

I need someone to blame when Trump inevitably destroys the country in the next four years. If you're not around, I won't have anyone to point the finger at. Viriditas (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, don't blame me lol, I didn't vote for him - or the black Nazi guy, either. Toa Nidhiki05 22:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, I guess it's back to blaming the DNC again. Thanks for nothing! Let me guess, you voted for Kodos? "Twirling, twirling, towards Freedom!" That's my all-time favorite line from The Simpsons. Viriditas (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, not quite. You'd be surprised who I did vote for, though, let's just leave it at that heh. Toa Nidhiki05 22:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harris' 2024 coalition is akin to the 1948 Thomas E. Dewey coalition.

It just hit me that educational polarization is the inverse of what it was in 1948, when Truman defeated Republican Dewey in an upset. The Northeastern states have always been the most educated, and Dewey won all of them except Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Harris won all of them except for Pennsylvania. The trend is the exact same, though the percentages do vary a bit. (Also almost all voters have a high school diploma, whereas in 1948 only about 37% did.)

• When Democrat Harry S. Truman won the presidency in an upset in 1948, he won about 60% of voters with less than high school, about 50% of voters with high school diplomas, 30% of voters with a Bachelor's, and about 25% of voters with a graduate degree.
• Republican Trump won 62% with high school or less, 51% with some college, 57% with an Associate's degree, 45% with a Bachelor's degree, and 38% with a graduate degree.

JohnAdams1800 (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's definitely a throughline with educational polarization and race, it's definitely getting more consistent - but I think it seems to be most with white voters, right? Toa Nidhiki05 15:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on killing of Brian Thompson page

Two editors on the Killing of Brian Thompson page want the page to portray the idea that a majority of Americans support the alleged killer. I'm not sure what should be done in a case like this. They've just reverted the introductionary paragraph back to this claim and have alleged that Emerson and a few other opinion polls are "too few" and "too inaccurate".

What should be done here? This seems ridiculous to me. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happened here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Killing_of_Brian_Thompson&diff=1263660520&oldid=1263659953 RomanianObserver41 (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to give a Good Article (GA) review for Solid South?

I've worked really hard on the Solid South article, covering the political history of the Southern United States after Reconstruction to the present. I've been trying to get it to become a Good Article, but nobody has reviewed after my resubmission. (My first attempt was rejected because of insufficient inline citations, which I fixed.) This has been my favorite article to write and update in Wikipedia, and I really think it merits being a GA. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 15:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can take a look at it over the weekend if nobody has picked up by then, @JohnAdams1800:. I have a lot of experience with GAs, so I think I'm qualified to deal with this. Toa Nidhiki05 15:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re: ANI

I'm getting big Pepe Sivlia vibes from this discussion, really

Slow clap. Never knew you had such a great sense of humor. Viriditas (talk) 01:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, ha! I'm not as "jokey" on here as in real life, but when the opportunity presents itself... Toa Nidhiki05 13:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aspersions

Regardless of the outcome of the AE posting, I do owe you an apology for the aspersions. It seems I hastily read the prior AE and, likely, overestimated the tolerance for standard rhetorical hyperbole, but that's still entirely on me. It wasn't my intention to accuse you of behaviour you weren't engaging in, so I do actually owe you an apology there. Sorry about that. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 17:33, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that. AE is, apparently, very strict with what you can say. I personally wouldn't regard being wrong about something - or even being marginally dishonest, really - as some sort of sanctionable error, personally, but that's just me. I was probably a bit too broad in what I said about you as well, so apologies there.

I don't hold anything against you here personally, for what it's worth. I regard this as a content dispute, and I think it's nearing the end of that for the near-term. Hopefully, once the RfCs are done, the page can just kind of settle down. Tempers are high, people are stressed - it happens. Toa Nidhiki05 18:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Working on Draft:Educational polarization in the United States

@Toa Nidhiki05 I'm creating an article on educational polarization. I thought this might interest you, to potentially contribute or approve as an article.

One hasn't been created yet and it's really hard to describe the two American parties without educational polarization. I've been trying to describe how the Democratic Party has become the party of what I call "educated liberalism." It's fundamentally different from both classical liberalism (i.e. free-market libertarian parties) and social democracy (i.e. parties on the basis of "working class solidarity" or labor unions).

It's a concept that's missing, and probably what has inspired so much conflict on the Republican Party's talk page. There's just a complete lack of coverage of the topic as an article.

Educational polarization helps explain why the Democratic Party is largely geographically restricted and income polarization has disappeared since Trump's rise. It also helps explain why the Republican Party wins voters across the income spectrum, in both some of the poorest places in the country and the world's richest individual (Elon Musk). JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I’d definitely be interested. I’m kind of shocked there isn’t a page for this already, frankly, given how pivotal of a concept this has become. Toa Nidhiki05 16:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Toa Nidhiki05 Would you be willing to help write the article with me? It's probably going to take me months to write the article as a whole. (It took me about a year to write roughly half of the Solid South article, getting sources and content.)

Educational polarization is just mind-boggling to me, given its electoral outcomes. And given educational attainment is positively correlated with higher income and wealth, it results in paradoxical outcomes. Yet there also appears to be a darker side to educational polarization IMO, namely the rise of Trump and right-wing populism for Republicans and the loss of the Democratic party's identity as the party of the "working class" and/or the low-income. There have been times where I just don't get it:

1. Why is the Democratic Party is struggling to win the votes to enact an economic agenda I feel would help the low-income? Paradoxically, it's because many of those very low-income people are abandoning the party.

• And yet, with higher educational attainment correlating to higher income and wealth, perhaps it's a sign that its strategy has succeeded for its educated White voters. But the very people who don't have college degrees and are often lower-income reject the Democratic Party's agenda. And this leaves behind African Americans in the South, who clearly want the Democratic Party's economic agenda but mostly can't get it at the state level.

JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:04, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]